So... to "verify" your "theory" you've introduced a "particle" that was never observed and does not explain anything, that cannot be explained by existing body of knowledge, that is supported by firm observations.

Individual atoms are also invisible to human eye, and yet we can devise experiments that prove their existence. We can even detect neutrinos that hardly interact with matter at all.

So... if you can't propose an experiment, perhaps can point to a physical phenomena that require the existence of Veegtrón to be explained (i.e. we can not explain this phenomena in any other way, except your Veegtrón "hypothesis")?

1. Seeing multiple objects instead of one is a biological phenomena. A result of how our eyes an nerves work. You raised up a point, that it can be observed also on movies. In this case this is because camera works by capturing an image several times a second. Existence of Veegtrón is not needed to explain this.

My counterexample: If you use high speed camera (one of those capable of taking hundreds or thousands if frames per second) to film the object you're rapidly moving with your hands, you will see that no 'doubling' occurs on the captured movie. At the same time you've seen the doubling with your own eyes. How your hypothesis explains that?

2. Sun is made of ionised gas. Mostly hydrogen nuclei (positively charged protons) and free, negatively charged electrons. A movement of electric charge is inducing a magnetic field (in accordance to Maxwell laws of electromagnetism) hence magnetism of the Sun (and other stars)Existence of Veegtrón is not needed to explain this.

3. Photons are quanta of electromagnetic radiation. Again explained by theory of electromagnetism.Existence of Veegtrón is not needed to explain this.

4. I don't really understand what you're talking about here? Is 'float' the correct word? What do you mean by that?

3. Many events can result in generation of a photon.In stars it is the reaction of nuclear fusion in which some of the mass of merging nuclei is converted into energy.

4. I don't really understand what ocean you're referring to. Stars or planets do not float in any kind of ocean...

5. I don't understand again... The matter of the sun is moved around by forces of thermal convection, pressure, angular momentum and possibly several more. This results in magnetic field of sun fluctuating.

Regarding the proposed experiment: What is "the electricity of the universe" and how can it be measured?

What we call colour is simply the range of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye.

Mchl has countered all of your statements with theories that have a large amount of evidence gained from experimentation to support them. You have come up with this 'Veegtron' thing with no substantiating evidence, no basis in physics, and no cause-effect relationship that cannot already be explained by current hypotheses and theories.

This thing that you have come up with is not a hypothesis, a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, much less a theory.

Quote:

The burden is the same universe. We need to measure the burden of the Veegtrón, because the Veegtrón is the positive and negative electric charge. VEEGTRÓN AND UNIVERSE IS THE SAME:(ELECTRICITY)IT IS THE CARRIER PARTICLE OF ELECTRICITYI think that it can be measured like an atom.

Nope. The carrier of electricity in a wire is carried by the flow of electrons from one potential to another. Electric field and magnetic field are carried by the force carrying particles, photons (boson, standard model of matter).

Quote:

1. From what I see, we see several times a second. The Veegtrón magnetized the color of a fast movement using the variable "time".2. If it is true, the atom has positive and negative charges, but who gave them that positive and negative electric charge?3. I would like to know that it produces the photon according to your studies.4. The word float means that it does not sink into the ocean.5 And what move the magnetism of the Sun. (The Veegtrón)“I propose an experiment and it is to measure the electricity of the universe in a vacuum chamber.”

1. The colour tracking that you see after moving an object is a biological phenomenon associated with the eye. Objects reflect light, orange objects reflect orange light, etc. So if you are looking at an orange object for a while and you move it, parts of your eye will still be 'used to' the orange colour and will make areas where the orange has been look a different colour.

Example. Stare at a colourful poster for a bit, and then move your eyes to a blank wall. You will see an 'afterburn' of colour on the blank wall. It will slowly disappear as your eyes readjust.

2. An atom is composed of protons (positive electric charge), neutrons and electrons (negative electric charge).\The charge components are protons and electrons.Protons are composed of two up quarks (of charge +2/3) and a down quark (-1/3). Creating a charge of +1 electron volt.The electrons have a charge of -1 electron volt. There are equal numbers of protons and electrons, hence the neutral charge of the atom.

3. I'm going to assume that you were asking how the sun produces photons.The energy within the sun produced by nuclear fusion excites the orbiting electrons of the atoms that make up the sun. When excited, the electrons 'jump' to a higher orbital energy level, and then drop back down to their original state. In order to drop, they must release energy, this energy is released as quantized packets of electromagnetic energy called photons. What we perceive as 'light' is a certain wavelength of electromagnetic energy, known as the visible spectrum.

And that, Charlie Brown, is really, really basic on how the sun makes light.

4. There is no ocean in space. Your point here is moot. 'Sinking' would be due to some gravitational effect, which would have to mean that there was a gravitational floor to the universe. There really isn't. In space there is no up or down.

5. I'm going to assume that you are asking why the magnetic field of the sun fluctuates. The plasma of the sun flows in currents, plasma is composed of ionised atoms - meaning that they have electric charge. A change in electric field perpetuates a change in magnetic field. As the currents move and change the magnetic field moves and changes. Sunspots are the greatest concentration of magnetic field.

Your proposals indicate a distinct lack of grounding in physics. You should look up the phenomena that you are intending to explain with your made up particle, and read about how they are currently explained.Wikipedia would be a good place for you to start, although I would prefer to refer you to scientific journals, their jargon can make them less accessible.

_________________"Don't tell me that man doesn't belong out there. Man belongs wherever he wants to go--and he'll do plenty well when he gets there."Wernher von Braun, Time magazine, 1958

Rather you have read the article and not understood. A photon is a quantized packet of electromagnetic energy. It can be produced under a number of circumstances.One example would be an electron of an atom in an excited state dropping to a stable state, this would result in the electron losing energy which is released in the form of a photon. This is what happens when you shine light onto anything that you can see. The light photon hits the outer electrons of the atoms, the atoms become excited (jump to a higher energy state) and then drop back to their original energy state releasing a certain wavelength of electromagnetic energy, which we see as colour. (Of course this can happen outside of our visual spectrum as well.)(I'm sure I previously explained this.)

The rest of your words are more garbled than last time. I am struggling to help you understand that there exist explanations for the phenomena that you think your Veegtron explains.

This is a summary:You have come up with an idea that has no scientific basis, it attempts to explain phenomena that already have good explanations with a lot of evidence to back them up.I'm not trying to sound mean, but you need to understand that if I already have a valid explanation why an orange drops when I let go of it a metre above the ground, then I don't need to come up with yet another explanation.

If English is not your first language then I'd encourage you to read scientific articles in your primary language in order to enhance your understanding.

_________________"Don't tell me that man doesn't belong out there. Man belongs wherever he wants to go--and he'll do plenty well when he gets there."Wernher von Braun, Time magazine, 1958

I had only previously skimmed this thread but after reading Rastaban's description of the photon it struck me that i had never thought before about whether Protons and Neutrons also emit and absorb Photons which has given me considerable food for thought but given that this thread has been already used for debunking one weird theory here is one of mine.

Rastaban or anybody else want to tell me where i have gone wrong with this one for getting rid of Dark Matter here are a couple of posts i did on the idea elsewhere but nobody has so far told me an obvious flaw i wont be offended if anybody points it out as i think its unlikely to be this simple but would like to know where i went wrong if anywhere.

I was recently thinking about Dark Matter as i occasionally do and seeing a comment about the emperors new clothes on the subject on another forum prompted me to crystallise my thoughts on the subject. so for any budding physicists or maths geeks on the forum what is the flaw in my idea :-

The reason its commonly thought that Dark Matter exists is that we don't observe enough classical matter in galaxies to explain the speed of rotation of said galaxies if we think that gravity follows the classical inverse square rule that we observe on a smaller scale to a high degree of accuracy.

We also observe that the universe is constantly expanding.

so my thought is what if all space is expanding and not just between the galaxies but the space in the galaxies themselves to conserve angular momentum over time the matter in galaxies would have to spiral back inwards towards the centre of the galaxies gravity which i think could provide the very slight modification of the inverse square law needed to get rid of Dark Matter. I think this could explain the Pioneer_anomaly https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... er_anomaly and its supposed breaking of the equivalence principle in relation to planets near it https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _principle is because it is not orbiting the sun its on its own course out of our gravity well at relativistic speeds and therefore has its own orbit in reference to the rest of the galaxy.

So anybody going to bring the idea down in flames by spotting something obvious i have missed? Or if you think i am correct can you do the math to prove it and i will split the Nobel money with you

What i am suggesting is that space inside galaxies is expanding at the same rate as space outside of galaxies ie the same thru all of the universe i think the current calculations use idealised models and just have the empty space between galaxies expanding. But if you think that the average galaxy is about a hundred thousand light years across if all that space expanded a very small amount it could make it look like the galaxy is heavier than it is making us look for none existent dark matter. I am not really modifying the accepted inverse square of gravity over distance what i am suggesting is that distance is changing on the large scale over time so it looks like a modification of the inverse square law.

Edited for clarity and to add example

The Example

If we magically teleported the moon from where it is to say twice the distance but it kept all other parameters the same it would no longer be going fast enough for the higher orbit and would fall towards the earth due to gravity until it stabilised into an new orbit i am suggesting the constant expansion of the universe is doing this teleport trick all the time but just by a very minuscule effect(but looks like ninety odd percent of the mass on the larger scale). The reason we think that there is dark matter is that all those stars orbit the various galaxies are orbiting too fast for the matter that we can see but if everything is getting a bit of extra acceleration down hill because of constant readjustments to the size of the universe we might not need dark matter at all.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

Rotation of galaxies is only one of the things where dark matter is "needed" to explain the observed behavior. How would your theory explain the gravity lensing effect of massive galaxy clusters, where the visible matter in galaxies in the cluster simply isn't enough to explain the observed effects?

Rotation of galaxies is only one of the things where dark matter is "needed" to explain the observed behavior. How would your theory explain the gravity lensing effect of massive galaxy clusters, where the visible matter in galaxies in the cluster simply isn't enough to explain the observed effects?

I am suggesting that the expansion of the universe is changing the shape of the already existing gravitational lens over time the larger the volume the bigger the effect as space time and gravity seems to be intimately entwined at least according to Einstein and in most things i am willing to believe him unfortunately i dont have the math to prove it one or the other but my visual imagination can see that if the universe is expanding then shape of a gravity lens would change over time according to your point of view, and to us distance and time are interconnected.

An analogy could be like binoculars with variable zoom if you look at something big the light would be bent at a different angle to if you looked at something smaller with the same field of view.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

After rereading i missed saying Galaxy clusters will also orbit their common centre of gravity so it would be the same as the effect as within a galaxy but on a larger scale with more time/distance the part of the universe viewed would have expanded more as well as all the way to us. I think it is now commonly accepted amongst cosmologists that the whole universe is considerably larger than 26 and a bit billion lights across that you would get from a simple big bang 13 and a bit billion years ago what we can see of the visible universe is a mere sliver not a hemisphere or even big segment. I could be wrong as i have not kept very up to date in recent years but i thought the surveys of supernovas had confirmed that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate and i just wondered if this was taken into consideration as Dark matter was IIRC thought up before then.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!